On Sun, 15 Mar 2009 13:18:16 +0200 Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote: > On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 12:05:51PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote: > > As I said, the laws *do* use that term... > > My mistake, sorry. Still, the main point stands. Your main point seems to be that, apart from some fringe cases (people misusing the term as if it were equivalent to "shareware"), there's no serious dispute as to what "public domain" means. You're lucky to almost always deal with knowledgeable people! :-) In my own experience, I've heard the term "public domain" used and abused in every possible (and impossible) meaning... The main legitimate meanings are: * not covered by copyright (since copyright terms have already expired or for any other reason) * that may be disclosed, i.e.: not restricted by any secrecy or non-disclosure agreement but I've heard (misinformed) people abusing the term as if it meant: * freeware * shareware * free software (e.g.: "Linux is in the public domain" [sic]) * published on the web or more generally on the Internet (e.g.: "I found it on the Internet, hence it's in the public domain" [sic]) * gratuitously obtained * ... Hence, I do _not_ think that the meaning of "public domain" is so unambiguous. -- New location for my website! Update your bookmarks! http://www.inventati.org/frx ..................................................... Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4
Attachment:
pgpHRLE6vVW30.pgp
Description: PGP signature